Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The death of a public intellectual

thmsmlr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 374 posts

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#261

Post by margalabargala »

kibwen wrote: post #147
mypastself wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don’t use social media, nor am I prone to personality obsession like the author, there’s definitely something to be said about following an “authority” on Twitter and the like. Whether they’re an artist whose work you enjoy, a top expert in a field you’re interested in, or simply a person whose writing on some topic you appreciate, surely there’s an individual whose insight you’d find valuable enough to “foll…

> surely there’s an individual whose insight you’d find valuable enough to “follow”? Not me. What I would like to follow is a topic that interests me, with discourse predominantly populated by subject matter experts. "User-based" follow systems like Twitter only make sense insamuch as the user sticks to their expertise, and as soon as they start veering away into new topics their comments are just as likely to be noi…

People are discussing different things here.

What you describe wanting, is what academic journals are. Subject matter experts discussing that subject matter with one another. Social media is not for you, and that's fine.

What other people are describing, is more like, an author writes a book you enjoy; so you read another book of theirs. There is enjoyment in their prose style and personal voice, and so they seek out more of the same.

And maybe the first book was a scifi or mystery novel, and the next book you find by that author is a non-fiction history of egypt, or a genetics textbook. You will likely still enjoy reading that book.

Sometimes that author can even be an expert on all such topics; Issac Asimov existed, after all. But when people are reading for entertainment, they'll be less picky.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#262

Post by migro23 »

Kye wrote: post #241
migro23 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Humans aren't robots. They aren't flawless. Every prolific public speaker messes up and says something that's complete nonsense while trying to collect the right word." Competely agree, what's jarring is that he is replying to a simple question asking to define something that is literally the focal point of his intellectual career. It is possible that he just messed up and said something that as you say was 'complet…

>> "Fair enough, can you source any other examples of him defining racism?" The suggested book is in my TBR list now. I haven't made a claim one way or the other, so I have nothing to cite or source. I really have no clue about the guy other than this one clip and the book recommendation, so I'm going to go with the medium where he has room to run and an editor challenging him on what really is a complex topic. "What…

'"What is racism?" could fill a book'

Agree, it is a complex topic but anyone that suggests that Martin Luthar King Jr. was racist because he claimed that "he would like to be judged not by the colour of my skin but the contents of my character" like Robin DiAngelo has (and Kendi falls into this category because he describes [and defines!!!] racism in the same way that DiAngelo does) is not worth the time in my humble opinion. There is a potentially unlimited number of books to read and we all have limited amount of time so some sort of filter is required. And anyone that thinks in a way that leads them to believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was racist is way off and not worth it.

The reason I'm saying this and why I referenced "post modernist" in my original quote is that these people (Kendi, DiAngelo) are defining racism in a way where the intent of the perpetrator of perceived racism is omitted and ignored. This is why I believe the Kendi definition in the video is no accident, he's trying to define it in way such that the intent of individual or group does not come into the equation. Whether you intend to be racist or not does not matter, you are racist by definition if you have the right (or wrong) colour skin.

Post modernism provides the theoretical underpinning of this claim as this school of though claims that objectivity does not exist, it is a phantom and a harmful one at that. There is merely a collection of different subjective experiences and beliefs and my subjective interpretation is as good as anyone elses. So if I interpret your action as racist then according to post modernist doctrine by definition it is racist, regardless of whether you intend to be or not.

Can't you see the problem here? Can't you see the potential problems that wide spread adoptation of such ideas on racism outlined above that are esposed by Kendi, DiAngelo and others would have on society and how it provides an awful basis for the successful collaboration of large and diverse number of people? Defining people by their race, what's more, trying to solve the problem of racism by focusing more on ones race making it the center of your being is in my opinion a political, social, moral and philosophical deadend. Go ahead and read the book but in my opinion it is a waste of time and possibly even worse than that.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#263

Post by 5040 »

RationalDino wrote: post #174
tuatoru wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just listened to half of an interview (the interview is long, and it's now bedtime) of John Gray. I think you'd class him as a fox, but perhaps he's more of a badger. Digs deep and wide into history to interpret the present and plot the future. Asks "what's similar and what's different, what's permanent and what's ephemeral?" Not afraid of being unpopular at the time. Some certainty is required when everyone is sayin…

The hedgehog/fox classification isn't mine, it is Philip Tetlock's. As is the data about pundits showing what the outcome is. See https://mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/tetlock/ . But I agree that it is not a perfect distinction. For example, Malcolm Gladwell writes on such a variety of things and viewpoints that he can't be a hedgehog. But he pursues a good story over what what is true, and therefore isn't very reli…

>The hedgehog/fox classification isn't mine, it is Philip Tetlock's

I know it from Isaiah Berlin, but it looks like he took it from Archilochus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#265

Post by chubot »

snorkel wrote: post #251
jimmydddd wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cousin of mine in her 20's has a podcast. I listened in on one and was surprised to hear that whe was giving out financial and investing advice. For context, she lives with her husband in his childhood bedroom with her inlaws, and works two or three days a week as a health professional. She has virtually no savings or investments, relies on her inlaws for food, and has an expensive Jeep on a 6 year loan. Interestin…

I can believe it. There are those skilled at performative intellectualism, i.e. sounding very smart and insightful, but the performance itself is the product, it is all they sell and offer. Whenever I hear a public speaker appealing to supposed ancient wisdom of obscure tribes and traditions who had better-than-modern diets, laws, monetary policy, medicine, footwear (or lack iof), etc then that tells me that it’s jus…

Also, it just takes a lot of time to produce that kind of content

The people with the knowledge/experience are often busy doing real world stuff

For others, producing that content is the "best" thing they can do with their time, but ironically that means you probably don't want to listen to them

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#266

Post by JSavageOne »

dralley wrote: post #236
blueflow wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

95% of times when i hear about Peterson, its someone trying to discredit him. Then i go to Youtube, search for what Peterson said about $topic, and can't find shit that i would even bother about. This stuff is getting creepy. Where is all the dislike coming from?

Why do people ever dislike public figures? Why do people dislike Dr. Oz or Dr. Phil or Jake Paul? Peterson is / was a drug addict that gives mediocre-at-best self-help advice, who also goes around whining about wokeness and saying hateful things, while somehow keeping a large audience and grifting them for millions of dollars. As far as public figures go, it's fairly typical for such a person to invite antipathy.

Nothing you just said disputes any of what Peterson has said. The fact that you mention him being a "drug addict" (he was briefly addicted to anti-depressants after his wife got cancer) and then use words like "whining" to try to discredit him without actually addressing or disputing anything he's said shows you just have an axe to grind with no substance.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#267

Post by raincole »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #245
jlos wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you would not consider someone who has the following CV an intellectual? - Has published or co-authored over 100+ academic papers in multiple fields - Has h-index of 41, i10-index of 77, with 21,000 citations [0] - Taught at Harvard - Tenured Professor at the largest University in Canada - 20+ year clinical practice - Best selling author with over 5 million copies sold You don't have to like his ideas, but if this…

Isn't this just an appeal to authority?

No. If the parent comment said "because Jorden Peterson has 20 years of experience, his opinion on topic X must be correct" then it's an appeal to authority. They didn't say that.

By the way, abusing terms is another sign for fake intellectuals...

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#268

Post by JSavageOne »

amazingman wrote: post #237
blueflow wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

95% of times when i hear about Peterson, its someone trying to discredit him. Then i go to Youtube, search for what Peterson said about $topic, and can't find shit that i would even bother about. This stuff is getting creepy. Where is all the dislike coming from?

If 5% of the time the discrediting is legitimate, then that should be enough to generate dislike for the man. If the 5% was rhetorical and it's really 0%, then you're not actually paying attention for reasons you should investigate. JBP is not a well man. Not physically, not morally, not ethically, and not spiritually.

If you were publicly outspoken on all of your views across all facets of life (eg. controversial topics, personal topics like relationships) with thousands of hours of content online, there would be plenty of people who strongly disagree with you and to use your words "dislike" you. The other way that's not possible is if you're not actually taking a stance on anything.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#269

Post by coryrc »

Kye wrote: post #213
migro23 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once I heard Kendi's definition of racism (1) I could no longer take that guy seriously. He is a social justice warrior public intellectual of the post modernist variety leading me to think he is either innocently and unknowningly deluded or an intentional and nefarious grifter profitting from giving apparent credence to the hard left hardliners. A similar role that Jordan Peterson leverages to make a living arguing…

Not knowing anything about him, do you think I should weigh a 2 minute off the cuff answer in a Q&A segment over what I might find in the 320 page book ubermonkey suggested? The framing of the video is plainly and severely biased, so I have to be suspicious about editing and what context or expansion/correction I might find in a longer clip, plus how the framing itself affects my own interpretation. edit: Having read…

You can read the whole book if you want to waste your time. It's easy: racism is white people not wanting to be around gangs; black culture glorifying beating up old Asian people is not racism.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#270

Post by [deleted] »

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #255
BryanLegend wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure I'll get downvoted here, but I think Peterson is brilliant. His books have absolutely given me insightful ideas that have improved my life and relationships.

Yes, not to mention his (completely free) lecture series on the Bible, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn.... an incredibly scholar he is.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN